It's a real pity that too many Bishops are passing up a very unique opportunity to craft similar messages to their flock at the height of media attention (however limited!) to the gruesome Gosnell story. How often will they get such an easy, ready made icebreaker for a lifesaving communiqué on the horror of abortion? It makes one wonder whether they really believe every abortion destroys a life.
Abortion, Contraception Consequences On Display In Gosnell’s ‘House Of Horrors’
By Most
Reverend James Conley Bishop of Lincoln
Our
news outlets are not known for their squeamish attitude toward violence. On the
contrary, reporters are often criticized for fixating on violence, exploiting
it as fodder for the 24-hour news cycle.
We
rarely see journalists shying away from a gruesome case. Yet, the media has
been reluctant to cover the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell – a Philadelphia
abortionist accused of committing unspeakable crimes at his "Women’s Medical
Center."
Already
indicted by a grand jury, Gosnell is on trial for running a "house of
horrors," where hundreds of infants were born alive and beheaded with
scissors.
The
testimony against him includes some of the most shocking statements ever made
in an American courtroom. His former aides speak of infants whose hands and
feet were kept in jars, and their bodies flushed down toilets, after they were
delivered alive and decapitated.
Somehow,
this story went largely unnoticed by mainstream reporters. One would expect a
murderous doctor, running a "clinic" reminiscent of Auschwitz, to
face a media blitz and a burst of public outrage.
Instead,
Gosnell’s trial has been treated as a low-key, local story. Pro-life advocates
took up the task of publicizing it, using social media to make up for news
outlets’ silence.
I
suspect journalists would rather ignore what happened at Gosnell’s
"Medical Center." The case raises too many disturbing questions –
about the mentality behind abortion, and our culture’s troubling attitude
toward human life.
For
instance, most "pro-choice" partisans dismiss the idea that abortion
leads to infanticide. They distance themselves from thinkers like Princeton’s
professor Peter Singer – who defends the killing of newborns, and the
"right" to abortion, on the same philosophical basis.
But
Gosnell’s trial shows the difficulty of separating abortion from infanticide,
in theory and in practice.
Indeed,
there is a hideous logical consistency in Gosnell’s career. He started off
killing children in the womb, and ended up killing them after birth. At some
point, the distinction between abortion and infanticide must have struck him as
a mere technicality, just a matter of geography.
Most
abortion advocates are, thankfully, not so logical. Most of them find Gosnell’s
actions appalling. Yet they have no valid or compelling grounds on which to
condemn his particular methods of abortion as wrong.
Indeed,
on the level of moral principles, infanticide and abortion are equivalent.
Kermit Gosnell took the abortion mentality to its logical conclusion.
This
is a hard fact, with disturbing implications. It is an inconvenient fact for
journalists, and many members of their audience, to face. This partly explains
their reluctance to cover Gosnell’s trial, since it directly raises the
question of abortion and its relationship to infanticide.
But
the link between infanticide and abortion is not the only issue raised by this
case. There is also the larger question of how human life is regarded, in a
culture where contraception is widespread and abortion becomes "backup
birth control." After all, most women who seek an abortion are on some
form of birth control.
Kermit
Gosnell’s actions are the logical outcome of the abortion mentality. But they
are also, in a deeper sense, the result of what Blessed John Paul II called the
"contraceptive mentality."
Many
people wrongly believe contraception prevents abortion. This is not borne out
by statistics, or by careful thinking about the issues.
Research
shows that contraception leads to riskier behavior, more unplanned pregnancies,
and consequently, more abortion. When contraception fails – as it inevitably
does – couples are tempted to eliminate the "unwanted" life.
Kermit
Gosnell looked at these "unwanted" lives, and saw burdens placed upon
women. He was more ruthless than most, in his efforts to eliminate these living
"burdens."
Most
people do not share Gosnell’s ruthlessness. But many in our society seem to
share his attitude: that human life is sometimes an inconvenient and
unnecessary burden, rather than a sacred gift from God.
This
is the "contraceptive mentality" that Blessed John Paul II saw as a
root cause of abortion. When we see any human life as a troublesome burden we
must manage, rather than a sacred gift entrusted to our care, there is a
temptation to get rid of the burden by any means necessary.
The
Gosnell case suggests that our society’s view of human life is deeply wrong. It
suggests that a culture of contraception cannot avoid becoming a "culture
of death" – in which some lives are seen not as gifts, but as burdens.
Our
media outlets thrive on provocation and controversy, but they shrink from
life’s deeper questions. They shy away from suggesting that abortion might lead
to infanticide. They don’t dare to ask whether the "contraceptive
mentality" makes us callous toward life.
The
popular media will not take the risk of raising these more fundamental
questions by publicizing Gosnell’s trial. That is why we must raise awareness
of this case, to help the world see the consequences of contraception and
abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment